Weconsider it our duty to inform you that it is our deep and firm
conviction that the state of affairs in the editorial board of the Central
Organ has become absolutely intolerable and that it is quite
impossible for us to carry out the Party line unless the board’s
composition is changed.

Onlythe first two meetings of the editorial board since the plenum
afforded us any hope of the possibility of joint work with Comrades Martov
and Dan. Comrade Martov’s agreement with the Central Committee’s letter on
the Conference (see No. 11 of the Central Organ. Martov signed
this letter) certainly testified to his endeavour loyally to carry
out the decisions of the plenum. A different tone was earliest of all
adopted by Comrade Dan, who declared the leading article of the Central
Organ
No. 11{1}harmful and in our presence accused Martov of opportunism like
that of the Central Organ. It has already become clear to us from this
that the out-and-out Golosists consider Martov an “opportunist” in the
sense of being ready to comply with the decisions of the Party, and the
whole question reduces itself to whether Martov will surrender to their
attack.

Martov’sarticle “On the Right Path” has shown that the answer is
yes. His refusal to insert it in Diskussionny Listok (although it
obviously discusses the Central Committee’s decision on the
composition of the Central Organ) is evidence of the outbreak of
hostilities. On the question of the relation of illegal organisations and
those active in them to legal ones, Martov in this article has
obviously gone over from the Central Committee (the letter on the
Conference
which Martov signed) to Dan. “The theory of equality” of
illegalists and legalists denotes a departure from the Central
Committee’s letter, a turn on the part of Martov, for the
contradiction between this “theory” and the Central Committee’s letter is
evident to anyone who does not want to close his eyes to it.

When,after the rejection of his article (he refused its publication as
a comment, and in Diskussionny Listok as well), Martov announced
in the editorial board of the Central Organ the outbreak of hostilities
by him, his position and that of Dan became quite clear to us.

Itwas definitely made clear to the Party by:
1) the behaviour of Mikhail, Roman and Yuri;
2) the manifesto of the sixteen Russian Mensheviks;
3) Golos No. 19–2O; and
4) the splitting manifesto of the four editors of Golos. To this
has now been added
5) the openly liquidationist statement of Potresov in Nasha
Zarya{4} No. 2, where he writes along with Martov and others, and
6) the statement of the editors of Golos Sotsial-Demokrata against
Plekhanov (“A Necessary Supplement to
Dnevnik”{5}), where, side by side with the same Potresov,
Martynov, Martov and Axelrod treat the Central Organ of the Party and
pro-Party Menshevisn en canaille.

Inour leaflet “Golos (Voice) of the Liquidators Against the
Party” and in No. 12 of the Central Organ we gave an appraisal of the
first four
statements.{2}
In No. 13 of the Central Organ, which will be out next week, Plekhanov
gives his appraisal of Potresov’s article in Nasha Zarya.

Asshown already by the four resolutions of the Menshevik
groups and parts of the Menshevik groups abroad (Paris, Nice, San
Remo,
Geneva{3}
),
the pro-Party Mensheviks are beginning to unite and come out against
Golos Sotsial Demokrata, which has definitely gone over to the
liquidators. The pro-Party Mensheviks openly oppose Golos
and the Russian liquidators openly admit Golos’s turn to
liquidationism after the plenum.

Theresult is that the situation in the Party has altered considerably
from that obtaining at the time of the plenum
and hence absolutely requires changes in the composition of the Central
Organ. The plenum wanted to give the possibility of returning to the Party
and working loyally in the Party to all Golosists, all
Social-Democrats, all legal participants in the workers’ movement
desiring to come over to the pro-Party position. It was counting
not on a split between J the two sections of Menshevism but on a general
passage of

bothsections to the pro-Party position.

Theblame rests with the Russian centre of the legalists (Potresov,
Mikhail and Co.) and with Golos Sotsial-Demokrata that things
turned out otherwise. Their split with the pro-Party Mensheviks
became a fact. Around the Central Organ and Diskussionny Listok we
united a number of pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov, Rappoport,
Avdeyev), with whom we were fully able to arrange Party work devoid of any
kind of factionalism, despite all our differences of opinion. Steps are
being taken abroad to unite the Bolshevik groups and the pro-Party
Mensheviks. The Golos groups, on the other hand, have definitely
taken a course against union.

Consequently,it is not for accidental or personal reasons that an
absolutely impossible situation has been created within the editorial board
of the Central Organ. If a state of continual squabbling, from which there
is no way out, prevails on our editorial board, if we three are definitely
powerless to overcome the hostile attitude of the two other editors, if all
work in the Central Organ is held up, it is the inevitable result of the
false position. In accordance with the plenum decisions,
rapprochement with the pro-Party Mensheviks is essential, but in
our Central Organ the anti-Party Mensheviks wage a relentless
struggle against the pro-Party Mensheviks who are outside the
Central Organ and helping it!

Weare fully confident that the comrades in the Central Committee will
realise the absolute impossibility of this situation and will not demand
that we exemplify it by recounting the innumerable conflicts and rows in
the editorial board. These conflicts, accusations and frictions, the total
disruption of the work, are simply the result of the changed political
situation, which is inevitably bound to lead to the disintegration
of the Central Organ if the step
dictated by the whole spirit of the plenum decisions is not taken,
viz., the replacement of the anti-Party, liquidationist, Golosist
Mensheviks by pro-Party Mensheviks, whose entry into the Party and its
leading bodies we are obliged to assist.

Inthe Central Committee Bureau Abroad the pro-Party Mensheviks have
already announced their desire to have their representatives, i.e.,
supporters of pro-Party Menshevism, on the editorial board of the
Central Organ (and in the Central Committee Bureau Abroad).

Wefor our part declare that we are definitely not in a
position to conduct the Party Organ in collaboration with the
Golosists, for it is impossible to carry out work exclusively by means of a
mechanical majority over people with whom we have no common Party ground.

Wehope that the Central Committee will take the necessary
organisational steps to change the composition of the editorial board of
the Central Organ and to set up a pro-Party collegium that is
capable of functioning.